How good (or bad) was the P-38, really?

[pbehn]

Long Range Bombing Missions. Please think before you post.

I am thinking, a long range bombing mission required four sometimes more waves of escorts for input and withdrawal. In the early days the fist and last legs were done by Spitfires, then P-47s and frequently a mix of all 4 types. I am not an expert on the subject, I have just been reading posts by people who are, so I suggest you cool your heels.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks - again, stop the banter and insults, I'd hate to close this thread down!

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Long Range Bombing Missions. Please think before you post.

Thats a brave request considering the contents of your last few posts...

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Incidentally, I just found this nice set of stats 15mins ago. Just rattled then into EXCEL so they show up better.

Genuinely shocked at a couple of them. Very surprised how cheap a P-51 is, and also although I knew the
P-47 was expensive, its nearly twice a P-51 in cost. P-38 pretty expensive, although on a "per engine"
basis its probably not too bad. (Bombers I just left in because its a nice reference, although a bit off topic
for this thread I suppose).

(Source = page 134 of this)

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Incidentally, I just found this nice set of stats 15mins ago. Just rattled then into EXCEL so they show up better.

Genuinely shocked at a couple of them. Very surprised how cheap a P-51 is, and also although I knew the
P-47 was expensive, its nearly twice a P-51 in cost. P-38 pretty expensive, although on a "per engine"
basis its probably not too bad. (Bombers I just left in because its a nice reference, although a bit off topic
for this thread I suppose).

View attachment 636185

(Source = page 136 of this)

View attachment 636186

Do the costs shown include Government Furnished Equipment? (Engines, turbosuperchargers, radio and radar equipment)

 

[Deleted member 68059]

Do the costs shown include Government Furnished Equipment? (Engines, turbosuperchargers, radio and radar equipment)

I dont know !

Let me have a look.... I hope it tells us somewhere.... *5mins elapses*

Umm ok this is what it says, I hope you understand it, as I`m not sure I do...

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I dont know !

Let me have a look.... I hope it tells us somewhere.... *5mins elapses*

Umm ok this is what it says, I hope you understand it, as I`m not sure I do...

View attachment 636188

It seems it generally includes GFE. Mod centers may install equipment specific to an operator at a designated location. The last paragraph basically says (to my understanding) the prices shown have included cost reductions for future deliveries (probably based on quantities ordered)

 

[Deleted member 68059]

It seems it generally includes GFE. Mod centers may install equipment specific to an operator at a designated location. The last paragraph basically says (to my understanding) the prices shown have included cost reductions for future deliveries (probably based on quantities ordered)

Ok, so I`ve done a more complete graph, instead of averaging it, this shows how the cost varied as time went on. P-38 has a pretty decent downward cost progression (which is I suppose exactly what you`d expect), but conversly, the P-63 got MORE expensive as time went on, and the P-51 is pretty much flat.

 

[pbehn]

When a B-24 costs around 8 times what a fighter costs and there were 18,000+ made, its pretty clear the cost of a fighter didn't weigh much on anyone's minds.

 

[Deleted member 68059]

When a B-24 costs around 8 times what a fighter costs and there were 18,000+ made, its pretty clear the cost of a fighter didn't weigh much on anyone's minds.

Hmm well I know what you mean, but I dont think they key factor here is where the money comes from (I`m inferring that`s what you were meaning ?), but that the cost naturally represents resources, materials, labour, factory space, time, engines, and so on.

I think if you added up all the resources for fighters it would not be that different to the heavy bombers, of which only two types were really made in volume. So I still think
the factors behind that "cost" would have been very important. It probably also gives you a pretty solid metric on relative manufacturing time as well - which I`m sure
more or less tells you how many you can make in a certain time period.

 

[PAT303]

Not necessarily true - the P-38's issues were continually addressed and improved. Later model P-38Js and Ls were great performers and in some areas out performed both the P-51 and P-47. It was more expensive to operate and required more pilot training but remained the premier AAF fighter in the PTO until the the Mustang started to arrive in numbers later in the war.

I'm not disagreeing with you but even with the continuous development it didn't do anything in theater aircraft weren't already doing with less problems such as pilot training maintenance etc. The other thing is the P38 is a big target,

 

[pbehn]

Hmm well I know what you mean, but I dont think they key factor here is where the money comes from (I`m inferring that`s what you were meaning ?), but that the cost naturally represents resources, materials, labour, factory space, time, engines, and so on.

I think if you added up all the resources for fighters it would not be that different to the heavy bombers, of which only two types were really made in volume. So I still think
the factors behind that "cost" would have been very important. It probably also gives you a pretty solid metric on relative manufacturing time as well - which I`m sure
more or less tells you how many you can make in a certain time period.

There are many ways to look at costs. After the raids on Schweinfurt and others without escort the calculations were finally changed. Without the fighter escorts you cant carry out a bombing offensive without crippling losses of planes and crews that cost much more.

 

[PAT303]

I remember watching a show on the Military History Channel (I don't remember which one) where a P-38 pilot (I don't remember who) was diving with a FW-190 on his tail; when his altitude got low enough to force him to level off, he used differential thrust and crossed controls to put the airplane into a skid; as the FW-190 shot past him, he straightened his plane out, applied full throttle and shot the FW-190 down. I remember wondering if he had practiced that maneuver, came up with it on the spot, or maybe had time to think of it during the dive? Any way you look at it, it was a helluva piece of flying.

I remember a post on here somewhere where a P38 pilot did that in a mock dogfight with a Spitfire and almost flew into the ground.

 

[33k in the air]

Now, considering Germany was "on it's last legs" in 1943, the numbers for 1944 (regardless when production "fell off") still showed a higher production number than the year prior.

I agree with the main point you are making, that Germany was certainly not on its last legs in 1943. But it is better illustrated by monthly figures in my view.

The armaments index figures from Speer's ministry included values for specific industries, e.g. aircraft, armoured vehicles, explosives, etc. These are reproduced in Adam Tooze's The Wages of Destruction. If my main computer was working, I'd post up some graphs of that data for the specific categories. Alas, that computer continues to rebuff my attempts at reconciliation . . .

 

[33k in the air]

The Luftwaffe was defeated between September 1943 when the P-38 was flying the large majority of long range escort missions and March of 1944.

You can substantiate this claim by providing the monthly number of U.S. operational fighter types, the monthly number of kill claims by the fighter groups flying each U.S. fighter type, the monthly figures for Luftwaffe operational fighters by type (e.g. day or night), and the monthly figures for Luftwaffe losses by type, for the period from June 1943 through June 1944.

That should indicate which months had the most impact.

 

[33k in the air]

The Luftwaffe was defeated between September 1943 when the P-38 was flying the large majority of long range escort missions and March of 1944.

It turns out Williamson Murray's Strategy for Defeat: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945 can be read at Hyperwar. Reproduced below are Luftwaffe fighter pilot losses by month as given in Murray's book.

343 = Sept. 1943
339 = Oct. 1943
245 = Nov. 1943
252 = Dec. 1943
292 = Jan. 1944
434 = Feb. 1944
511 = Mar. 1944
447 = Apr. 1944
578 = May 1944

One-third more pilots were lost in the four months spanning February through May (1,970) that were lost in the five months from September through January (1,471).

I definitely suggest reading through Williamson's work.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

I'm not disagreeing with you but even with the continuous development it didn't do anything in theater aircraft weren't already doing with less problems such as pilot training maintenance etc. The other thing is the P38 is a big target, View attachment 636243

Maybe in the ETO but not in the Pacific where it was the preferred AAF until the P-51 arrived. Being a bit target didn't matter in the PTO

 

[pbehn]

From Wiki concerning "Big Week" where types are mentioned Big Week - Wikipedia

20 Feb 44 Missions one and three above are escorted by 94 P-38 Lightnings, 668 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47 Thunderbolts and 73 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51 Mustangs; they claim 61-7-37 Luftwaffe aircraft; one P-38 Lightning, two P-47 Thunderbolts and one P-51 Mustangs are lost, two P-47 Thunderbolts are damaged beyond repair and 4 other aircraft are damaged; casualties are 4 MIA. German losses amount to 10 Messerschmitt Bf 110s destroyed and three damaged with 10 killed and seven wounded. Total losses included 74 Bf 110s, Fw 190s and Bf 109s and a further 29 damaged.[12]​

21 Feb 44
Escort for Mission 228 is provided by 69 P-38s, 542 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 68 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 0-1-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair; the P-47s claim 19-3-14 Luftwaffe aircraft, two P-47s are lost, two are damaged beyond repair, three are damaged and two pilots are MIA; the P-51s claim 14-1-4 Luftwaffe aircraft, three P-51s are lost and the pilots are MIA. German losses were 30 Bf 109s and Fw 190s, 24 pilots killed and seven wounded.[13]​

22 Feb 44
These missions are escorted by 67 P-38s, 535 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s, and 57 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1 Luftwaffe aircraft destroyed, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair and 6 are damaged; the P-47s claim 39-6-15[clarification needed]​ Luftwaffe aircraft, 8 P-47s are lost and 12 damaged, 8 pilots are MIA; the P-51s claim 19-1-10 Luftwaffe aircraft, 3 P-51s are lost and 3 damaged, 3 pilots are MIA.

24 Feb 44
Escort is provided by 81 P-38s, 94 P-47s and 22 P-51s; 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair; the P-51s claim a single German aircraft on the ground.

25 Feb 44
Escort is provided by 73 P-38s, 687 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-47s and 139 Eighth and Ninth Air Force P-51s; the P-38s claim 1-2-0 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-38 is damaged beyond repair; the P-47s claim 13-2-10 Luftwaffe aircraft, 1 P-47 is lost and 6 damaged, 1 pilot is MIA; the P-51s claim 12-0-3 Luftwaffe aircraft, 2 P-51s are lost and 1 damaged beyond repair, 2 pilots are MIA.

 

[wuzak]

The chart and percentage of loss means a great deal. The difference of 7 vs 3% loss rate saved the daylight bombing campaign. Do the math, you had virtually no chance of flying 25 missions and surviving with 7% losses. Moral was in the toilet because the bomber crews could do the math.

In escorted raids deep into Germany early in 1944 the number of bombers lost per mission were very similar to those on the unescorted (well, only partially escorted) Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission and second Schweinfurt raid - around 60-80. The difference was that in 1943 there were ~300 - 350 bombers on those missions, in 1944 there were as much as 1,000, sometimes more.

Also note that after the second Schweinfurt raid the bomber strength took time to replenish, and when they were at full strength the weather often proved a very big obstacle, meaning that the 8th AF didn't fly as many missions in the second half of 1943 as they might otherwise.

 

[pbehn]

In escorted raids deep into Germany early in 1944 the number of bombers lost per mission were very similar to those on the unescorted (well, only partially escorted) Schweinfurt-Regensburg mission and second Schweinfurt raid - around 60-80. The difference was that in 1943 there were ~300 - 350 bombers on those missions, in 1944 there were as much as 1,000, sometimes more.

Also note that after the second Schweinfurt raid the bomber strength took time to replenish, and when they were at full strength the weather often proved a very big obstacle, meaning that the 8th AF didn't fly as many missions in the second half of 1943 as they might otherwise.

Something I read recently, you cant do deep penetration raids all year round, there isnt enough daylight in the depths of winter or darkness at the height of summer. (just an aside)